I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

I'm a fairly new judge, so please stay away from any debate jargon or talking fast. Please time yourselves during speeches and prep time. Tell me how to vote, judge, and weigh the round. In the end, I will vote for which side makes the most sense to me and has the most important impact. I don't know K's, theory, or topicality, so if you are going to run one of them, make sure to explain it very well and tell me how it impacts the round and my vote. I judge rounds based on how persuasive the teams are, and how well they respond to counter-arguments. I've judged LD and PF, but not policy so make sure to explain things and not use jargon. Most of all please be kind to the other team and have fun!

No spreading, be respectful, please give sign posts :)

Brand new judge who has never seen a round.

I will obviously be judging based on how well you can persuade me.

If you speak too quickly I will not be able to understand you or score the arguments for you.

Please be respectful to each other.

I am a recent college graduate with 5 years of speech and debate experience, including PF (State level), Congress (State level), Duo Interpretation (State Level), and Original Oratory (National Level). I have a background in Political Science and Public Policy.

For PF:

- I value clarity over all else. Please make your arguments clear enough that even someone with minimal knowledge of the topic can follow you. I am willing to accept seemingly obvious/underdeveloped impacts so long as the claim and warrant are strongly connected.

For LD:

- For LD I am primarily a Tabs judge. Speaker points and strong Value/Criterion are important to me.

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow; recent, relevant, honest Evidence as well.

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Hi!

I debated all throughout high school, mostly LD but I am familiar with the other formats.

I don't care about speed as long as you're not tripping up a lot. Tag teaming is fine. I do flow CX and vote on it so keep that in mind. I'll primarily vote on impacts which outweigh the amount of arguments and evidence every time.

No need to ask if I'm ready, I'll be ready unless I say something.

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

I am a parent judge and have no prior personal experience in debate. I have judged at numerous tournaments over the past 3 years and have judged each of the debate events.

The strength and persuasiveness of your arguments are the most important, but specifically I watch for three things: organization, performance and clash.

Organization: I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. Signposting is helpful.

Performance: Act confident, speak clearly, stand up straight and look up from your computer. Do not speak too fast. Use enunciation and inflection in your voice. If you're speaking so fast that I can't follow what you're saying your argument is wasted.

Clash: This is a debate event and I want to see debate! I watch for rebuttals of specific arguments. Signposting during rebuttal is also helpful. I also watch how well you handle yourself during crossfire. Do you ask intelligent questions, when answering questions are you able to respond knowledgeably and confidently?

Be professional. You can debate and clash and probe your opponent's arguments without being rude, offensive or immature.

Public forum is supposed to be argued as if you are in front of a non-specialist or citizen judge. That's me! If you are debating in public forum, your arguments and debate style should conform to that standard and it's important to me that you understand that.

In Congress I like to see extemporaneous arguments that keep up with the flow of the debate and respond to previous speakers. If you're looking down at your computer reading your speech that tells me that you aren't keeping up with the movement of the debate. I like to see advancement of the argument and don't want to hear the same argument repeated that has already been given by another speaker. I also look for how you respond in questioning.

In LD I care more about strong quality arguments than the value criterion. That being said, since there is a value criterion, you should make it clear how your arguments connect back to yours.

I'm a high school Spanish and Language Arts teacher who was part of the Speech and Debate program at my school from 2010-2013, for two years as an assistant coach and for one year as a head coach. Then in 2020 I stepped in as assistant coach once again. My experience is in Lincoln Douglas Debate and Congress.

I enjoy a good use of logic and argumentation, skillful use of evidence, clear and powerful delivery, as well as strong road-mapping and sign-posting.

I don’t enjoy avoidance of opponents’ challenges to your arguments, speed at the expense of content, or lack of decorum.

I think debate is an awesome pursuit and I congratulate the competitors on taking part in such a challenging and intellectually rewarding activity!

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

This is my second year judging. I am just happy to be here to help! I normally judge speech. I would appreciate you timing yourselves and being super clear in the arguments you make.

My paradigm is pretty simple. I like a few detailed arguments instead of many brief arguments. Be clear! Be courteous and be ethical. Convince me, and I will vote your way.

I am a lay judge. I have not competed in Speech and Debate. This is my third season judging and I have judged both Speech and Debate during that time. I have years of public speaking and business presentation experience. With that experience, I tend to consider the following important elements when judging: Tone of voice, body language, making relevant points and arguments supported by facts or examples.

Lincoln-Douglas debaters, I will be looking to see your ability to interpret the resolution and uphold your position by providing constructive arguments that clash. As well as the logic, philosophy, morals, and ethics you use to support your position.

Policy Debaters, I favor stock issues/policymakers, I like to see real-world implications, cause, and effect.

Big Questions Debaters, this is a big picture debate to me. Evidence is great and i’m all for it but this will always come down to that whole picture who can uphold the resolution better. A lot of my LD paradigms will flow over here. I like logic, philosophy, morals/ethics

Overall, I'm open to whatever you'd like to run. Just make sure i can hear and understand your position.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 29 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 23 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for over a decade. I expect professionalism and good argumentation. POs should be efficient; keep recency and precedence; prevent suspension of the rules; and be strict but KIND.

General- Lets explain everything you are doing. I will flow and if something is dropped then you are most likely going to loose. ROAD MAPS. Explaining and over explaining is better then assuming I know what you are talking about.

At the end of the day its your job to convince me on why and how you won. If you want me to remember something then tell me and explain why.

Subject to change.

Policy----------- As I am a policy judge now I request no Theories unless its your best theory and you explain it SUPER WELL. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING as I am a very comms judge but I will also flow. The better you make me understand what you are arguing the better chance of you winning. Reading Evidence then explaining will help your chances. Just reading Evidence is will most likely hinder you.

- I prefer a few arguments that are well thought out, concise and persuasive over an abundance of arguments.

Policy Maker Paradigm

Stock Issues primary importance

Old-school approach

Rudeness is death

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

I have practicing law a civil litigation trial attorney since 2000. I have about participatred in many jury trials and bench trials over the years. Effective debate is part of my daily life. However, debate is not the same as conflict. I expect participants to be respectful and collegial. My paradigm focuses on evaluating whether the participants are actually responding to eachother's arguments or contentions. Simply rattling off prepared comments does not impress me. Engaging in the arguments and respinding to your opponents does. I will not tolerate disrespectful or unprofessional clash. Also, I understand time limitations but reading prepared remarks so quickly that nobody can understand them is not convincing to me. If I can't understand you, it does not matter how good your arguments are. I'm listening for content, not just volume of evidence.

Caleb Drechsel - competed in Speech and Debate 2008-2011; 5+ year coach.

Tl;dr:

More traditional than progressive, though I enjoy a good kritic

Quality > Quantity - a clearly spoken word is more effective than speed-reading gibberish.

If I didn't flow it, I didn't find it important enough (or I missed it) -rarely votes on flow-points

Claim, Warrant, IMPACT

VOTERS - much good, very nice, more please.

---

As a debater, coach, educator, and community member, I believe debate is a form of collaborative truth-seeking. As such, I am not here to count points. I am here to listen, learn, and follow where the truth points me... And decide who won my ballot!

You and your opponent are my guides in that truth. I take you both as assumed-experts on the resolution, and so a great way to win my trust is to show yourself competent on the topic and context. Debate is not always an either/or decision. I may agree and want a resolution but withhold my vote because sufficient doubt was cast on it, or I'm not comfortable with the reasoning for it. That being said, I may have great concerns about a resolution/bill, but the NEG/CON didn't give me sufficient reason to justify those reservations.

It's what you say... Not what you "meant" to say. I try to be aware of the curse of my own knowledge so that I do not fill in your arguments. I hope I can summarize your argument at the end of the round, so give me signposts, key phrases, and impacts to track. I am less concerned with whether or not your opponent hit every one of your contentions. I am more concerned that I can follow your argument, that I am not having to fill in gaps because I could not understand or comprehend your thoughts. My voting record shows I am swayed more by clear, informed arguments than spread, jargon-heavy contention-bashing.

...And how you say it. Debate is communication and connection between you, your audience, and your message. Treat your judge and opponent with respect - both in your words, behavior, and tone. If spreading your case requires you to shout, spit, gasp, or disconnect from your words, it probably will influence my decision. Consider the irony and dissonance in shouting "IT'S FINE!" and the confusion of describing the theoretical end of the world in the same voice you'd order a burger.

My RFDs tend to follow this pattern: The AFF argued the resolution by [my summary of their position]; the Neg tried to argue/show [my summary of their position]. I voted for the [winner] because...[RFD]; I would have voted for the [loser] if... [feedback].

If time allows, I try to briefly (1 sentence) disclose verbally a strength I saw in each case (though time rarely allows in tournaments outside of finals), and what I would offer for improvement - either in the case itself or in delivery. I recognize I am one judge and a specific audience member, so please take any feedback or suggestions accordingly.

Below are some more specifics in my mindset around different debate types:

Lincoln-Douglas... is a value debate. Cards (evidence) help us relate reality to the values and moral obligations that guide us. Philosophies are frameworks of thought and morality, but ultimately, we must consider the actual and practical impact of those values on our world. I find myself voting most often on which debater/argument gives me confidence in a position.

I'm far less concerned with how "safety" is infinitely more important than "justice" - both are important. I am far more interested in which value is most appropriate or important in the resolution, and how the value criterion can guide us to a position on that resolution. we can find an "island" - a solution - where we can have both to the maximum potential.

Public Forum ... is a fact debate. We are seeking to understand the costs and benefits of a given action in a scenario. Cards and evidence help us be confident in whether supporting the resolution will have a better/worse outcome than the status quo. I look to both sides to inform me of what factors, details, and considerations should be most important when I vote.

It is also a team debate. While I do not vote on teamwork or speaker points/performance in the round, I do actively resist voting for low-point wins.

Congress... Simulates our policy-making process. You are not there to perform a speech but to convince an audience of your peers to vote in favor or withhold support for a given bill or resolution. You are there to use Parliamentary procedure to ensure the social contract is upheld for your constituents.

Speakers should contribute to debate and progress the flow of debate on a bill - not just read a prepared speech. Signpost your speech by references previous speakers, points or concerns, or clear indicators you are introducing a new contention. Call for specific actions from your colleagues, give them voters, use your tone and character to create appropriate urgency for what is being considered. DIRECT QUESTIONING: Ido take not of competitors who stand out (or flounder) during direct questioning. Questions are not always antagonistic or combative but can also collaborate with the speaker.

Presiding Officers: You are to lead the chamber. I will support your decisions while protecting the integrity of the chamber. In Open, I will stop an out-of-order motion from the Chair, but I will wait for you to correct out-of-order behavior before interrupting. That being said, if you feel I made a mistake, you can use that as an opportunity to model Robert's Rules and challenge me! I want to give your as many opportunities to showcase your skill to the judges (and draw their attention to it).

Policy... is an evaluation of a comprehensive policy that fulfills the spirit of the resolution. In Policy debate, the debaters can use the stock issues to signpost, label, or otherwise present their plan to fulfill the resolution. The assumed goal is solvency of the proposed resolution or a counterplan. Cards become the backbone of these constructive arguments and should guide me in how to weigh the significance of harms and inherency of factors, advantages, and disadvantages of each case plan.

I respect that this debate format encourages spreading to meet these expectations, but I have yet to be convinced that a debater should be evaluated by their speed to read words over the clarity, tone, and rhetorical technique in delivering those words. I also have yet to see a real-world application of the skill in the debates and public forums of our world - specifically those that craft and present policy. I admit I often find myself led more by the narrative of an argument more than the number of arguments. In other words, the volume of evidence and warrant given should be measured and framed appropriately to what effectively links the claim with the impact.

---

Thank you for your time and dedication in this activity! I encourage you to not lose sight of the purpose and application of the skills you're practicing here: research, listening, comprehension, critical thinking, speaking, rhetoric, analysis, etc. You are coming of age in a world where nearly every person is one swipe/click away from being/finding an audience. Your ability to speak to be understood and listen to understand (Sean Covey) will determine whether you become a mover or the unconsciously moved.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

I like to see competitors with clear impacts, contentions, points, and counterpoints. I dislike and mark down on logical fallacies, circular points, or unrelated arguments (this, obviously, doesn't apply when introducing new, applicable information). Speed should be between 150-170 words per minute, although I don't make an issue out of this. Respect for your competitor and their effort is a MUST.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Better evidence is better than more evidence. Explain your reasoning.

Please speak at normal conversational speed. If you're talking fast, I believe that you're trying to force more evidence out, which means that you're not convinced that your evidence is good, and it shows that you're nervous, which implies that you're not convinced of your argument.

The side with the most facts (evidence and reasoning) that support their position will win. I'm also willing to listen to arguments that state case confidently.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I'm a history/government/English teacher, and I'm married to a Speech and Debate coach, but I've never judged before.

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

I did speech and debate all four years of high school, mostly staying in public forum.

The important things to me are as follows:

1. Making sure to attack all arguments and defend your own

2. Please be polite, I know things can get heated but be kind to one another

3. While I do not consider myself a coms judge, if you speak fast to be clear in your attacks

4. Voters, voters, voters, the last speech of each side should summarize the main points, this speech also allows me to see which points you believe you best defended/attacked

Additionally, I flow and keep track of arguments so signposting if you can really helps me out.

Make sure to have fun! Do good things!

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

Background:

Howdy to whoever is reading this! I did PF debate in high school from 2016-2019 and have been judging on-and-off since then. I have experience judging all types of debate, but my specialty is definitely in PF.

PF:

Above all, be respectful and be clear. Make things super easy for me to understand and make sure you annunciate well. I'm pretty flexible, but not a fan of more policy-esque cases. I'm fine with speed, but make sure your main points are clear. If I don't flow it, it didn't happen, so keep that in mind too. Big fan of roadmaps and over/underviews.

LD:

Similar points to what I've written above for PF. I'm open to pretty much anything you throw at me, but make sure that you make it clear to me. I'll judge heavily on framework and values, fine with decent speed but make sure you're easy to understand.

If you have any specific questions, just let me know before the round starts.

My biggest paradigm is civility. Keep the arguments courteous and well supported. Speak clearly. Keep track of points and counterpoints and address them as best you can. Present yourself professionally in how you interact with others.

For policy:

Don’t get too abstract; all your arguments need to have strong links. Arguments need to tie together and that be understandable. Your speed needs to be understandable with mild to no spreading/speed. Tag teaming is fine, no k’s, but topicality is cool. When evaluating impacts don’t pull Kish arguments such as controversial social issues into it. Don’t bring race or gender into it, and shy away from social issues that feel manipulative. Don’t play on my emotions, give me a great, straight debate. You can run technical things but it won't prioritize as well. I am looking for stock issues, mostly. Strong foundation, lots of meat in the middle, strong ethics in your interactions (respect for each other), and may the best argument win.

I’m big on respect between partners and teams. Impacts should be more logic-based then emotions, as there’s a difference between science and emotional guilt/engineering.

Voters should include the heights of why your team is winning. If you don’t bring something up in voters, and I don’t have it on my flow, it may not be counted.

In all events:

Ethics and etiquette are high stakes in all events.

I am a volunteer judge and new to judging debate but I gained some experience judging speech at the regional level this year.
I ask that you please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. I will judge based on communication of ideas and logic of arguments, clear signposting and no dropped arguments.
I commend all participants for participating in this scholastic challenge!

Arguments should be clear, compelling, and logical. I am open to many styles and do not feel dogmatic about any specific paradigm. I expect debaters to manifest respect and decorum, while debating to win. Debate is training for "real-world" activities and debaters must quickly adapt to a given argument or style. I will do the same as a judge.

Debate:

• Quality of argument over quantity
• Evidence to back up argumentation.
• Articulate your point - you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you.
• Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending. There is no room for that.
• Use your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story
• Use your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
• Use your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.
• Use your final focus to make me vote for you.
• Convince me

Congress:

• You have a limited amount of time so try and get as many speeches in as you can.
• However, just because you speak the most, doesn’t mean you will get 1st. Your speeches need to be spoken with clarity, poise, and facts.
• Be ready to back up your argument during questioning. While you are getting questioned, answer respectfully.
• While you are questioning another speaker, be respectful. I will bump you down in rank for being disrespectful
• Just because you are the P.O. does not get you ranked 1st. As a P.O. you need to be respectful of your fellow representatives. If you make faces during someone’s speech or questioning, your rank will go down. If you play favorites, your rank will go down. If you are rude, your rank will go down.
• I judge you based off of your speeches, your answers, and what you ask your fellow representatives.
• if you are down right rude, you will get a very low score. You can be competitive and still do it respectfully.

Speeches:

• Your speech needs to hold my attention as well as your audience.
• You need to engage with your audience and make them feel as though this is the only speech they ever want to listen to
• You need to speak clearly and articulate. If I can’t understand you, I am unable to evaluate you
• Your speech should have a wow factor. Make your speech so interesting that I go back to the judge’s lounge and tell everyone about how great it was.

Summarized Paradigm: I like competitive yet polite debate. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Furthermore, constructive speeches should have ample evidence (with citations) and be easily understood. Moreover, when a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. I appreciate eye contact, extemporaneous presentations, and welcome body language.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Emphasize them and make them relatable, the criterion should not be overly technical.

Policy: Evidence, Evidence, Evidence! Do not just quote your evidence, know and understand every piece of you bring forward.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. Talking during the other teams prep time is frowned upon, discuss needed material during your own time as to not interrupt their case planning.

Final thoughts: Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are just as important as graceful losers. Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge. I want you all to enjoy the competition and make great memories. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have any preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy too.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Madi Ingraham!

I competed in LD at Eagle High School (Idaho) for four years and competed in NPDA (Parli) for four years on a scholarship at The College of Idaho. I coached at Eagle for about 4 years and debate is the love of my life.

PARADIGM: I consider myself a tabs judge. Run whatever arguments you want, run whatever you feel most comfortable with. I was a K debater in college, so I tend to enjoy hearing those types of arguments more. Only risky argument to run in front of me is Politics DAs, I've never understood them well.

Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you.

PLAN/CP: Please read your plan texts twice. There's nothing I hate more than being deep in a T debate and only having half the plan text to reference. I haven't judged policy debate yet this year, so please don't assume I know your AFF. Explain the links and solvency mechanisms well.

ADV/DAs: Run them. Since I come from Parli debate, where we can't use cards, I'm much more persuaded by analytical assessment and explanation. Tell me WHY your cards matter in terms of the overall debate. Impact out your advantages and disadvantages fully, don't just say buzzwords and expect me to do the work for you. I will only vote on what you say, I think this is the best way for me to stay objective and avoid judge intervention.

Ks: Run them!! But only if they're good and make sense. Again, don't assume I'm up to date on your literature base. And please don't stumble through some K you clearly found online and haven't read yet. I weigh solvency relatively heavily.

Debate is competitive storytelling. Don't get so bogged down in the line-by-line that you lose the value of crystallization. Your first speeches and rebuttals can be to the point line-by-line, but by your final speeches you should be telling a comprehensive story of why you won the round.

I'd rather not judge identity politics. I don't like the position it puts me in as a judge, since this is a competitive event, I am forced to choose a winner and loser. It feels extremely violent for me to put a win / loss on someone's identity.

Organization is extremely important to me. I need a clean flow in order to give helpful feedback and a good RFD. Please take two seconds to make sure I know where you're at!! Overviews and underviews are a lost art that bring SO much clarity.

If you have any other questions, just ask!

I debated in High school, a year in college, and worked as an assistant coach for a short time. That being said I have been out of the community for a good chunk of time and am still a bit rusty.

I am okay with speed but my rusty-ness means I am not going to be the fastest pen. If i dont hear your argument then it cant make it on my flow, if it cant make it on my flow it becomes harder to let that weigh in on my decision. If something is important, make sure you emphasize it. That doesnt mean saying the same thing over and over, it means saying it once in a clear and concise way. I am okay with you moving a bit faster through evidence, if its truly important there is a decent chance I will be asking to see it after the round anyway. I think speed can be a good tool, but if you are simply going to rely on it to outspread your opponent then I start to take issue with it.

I am pretty intentional about leaving my own feelings about anything at the door. You get to tell me whats important, you get to tell me why, and you get to tell me what matters in the debate. Absent any provided framework I default to policy maker, but only cause its the easiest way to evaluate for most debates.

I am okay with alternative frameworks for approaching debate, but it must be clear what the framework is, why it is valuable, and what makes that framework a preferable approach to our time in round. I have no issue with traditional policy making style debate, but I do think that we should be held to account for the positions we defend, and I am okay with the introduction of ethical or moral questions as a legitimate attack on a position. By and large I think you get to decide what the debate is about, You get to tell me what is important and why that is the case. I can vote on just about any impact given the right framing and the right arguments about the way we weigh impacts, but dont think I will vote just because you throw out some grand scale impact with no context or story connecting it to the debate.

I prefer depth to breadth as a general rule. I would rather see a well developed negative position with some built in flexibility to allow for some jetisoning of arguments rather than three or four different positions (counterplans, K's). You can win that having more positions is better in the theory debate, but it will be an uphill battle. Same goes for the affirmative, I would rather see 2-3 advantages with good development and strong links than 5-6 advantages that you just narrow down to 2-3 by the end of the round.

I do love a good K debate, emphasis being good. Dont read it if you arent comfortable with it, or if you feel like you cant defend it or the alternative framework necessary to evaluate it. But I am perfectly okay with bringing into the debate space the questions about how we as individuals need to relate to these larger questions of policy, action and consequence.

I hate shallow T debates. If you think you can win it I want to see extrapolation for why your definition provides the best potential debates and education, not just questions of potential abuse. My partner in high school won T 4 out of 5 rounds and it has given me an appreciation for well debated topicality.

I also place a high value on being civil to each other. You are gonna have to deal with people you dont like and disagree with for the rest of your life, learning how to do so without letting your tone of voice become all angry and confrontational is one of the most important things debate can teach us. There is a distinct difference between calling someone out for being morally or ethically problematic however, in these instances a bit of venom may be called for. But by and large in the debate space there is no reason for us not to be kind to each other, competition is good, being rude is not. I dont want to see people intentionally talking over each other to avoid real questions or conversation.

Also in my judge training they made a big deal about evidence violations. If you feel like there is a real violation occuring let me know, but by and large if evidence is truly important to the round I will be calling to see it afterwards any way. That being said if you feel like a particular bit of evidence is important to the round, whether in regards to impact calculus or framing or what have you, please flag it for me and be clear on the authors name and date so I know what to ask for after the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

LD

Im less experienced in this style of debate, but a lot of what I said above will apply here. I have no problem with alternative frameworks and I know that has become a lot more common since my time in the community. That being said you need to tell me what that alternate framework is, what it means for how I as a judge evaluate the debate and the topic and why it is preferable to the framework you opponent provides.

Again I don't have any real issues with speed, If i cant understand you I will let you know. But dont just turn it into a spewing contest, LD has less evidence and more argumentation then Policy and spewing through those arguments means I might lose some of the details that will be important in evaluating the debate.

PF

Not much to add here. I have more respect now for PF then I did in high school since it seems to mirror the conversations we actually have about politics and the world. I flow it a bit different then the other styles of debate, so I am less worried about the line-by-line argumentation, and more about the cohesive narrative that you are defending.

What arguments are most important?

My background is mostly in Policy Debate and was about 13 years ago. Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you in order to flow your arguments and weigh them in the round. T is totally fine, but generic T arguments are not typically winners from my experience and if you are going to argue T in the second rebuttal, this should be your primary argument. Fine with CPs, K's, etc... the best argument(s) in the round and those who articulate their argument(s) best will be a major decider factor in my judging decision. I will read evidence to ensure its validity if necessary, so please ensure that the tag you use is representative of the evidence you are presenting.

Tell me your voters in the rebuttal/ summary/ final focus speeches. If you don't, you're stuck with whatever I took away from it. Impact analysis is important, especially real world impact analysis. Give me timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc... if you do not, you are stuck with what I took away when weighing these.

Tag teaming?

This is fine and will not weigh into my decision, but domination by one partner could impact speaker points and rankings.

Style

I am tab and will weigh whatever is debated in the round, however, would default to a policy maker...

Please ask me additional questions prior to the round if you have them and I will be happy to answer.

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguements and communicate effectivly. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your arguement and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

I expect everyone to debate honorably and with respect to your opponent. Debate the topic- not the person.

LD/PF/Extemp Debate:

What I love to see is a case that goes beyond the obvious; straight-to-the-point questions; a well-organized rebuttal that can attack every aspect of your opponent's case; and voters that clearly point out why and how you won. If I notice issues in your opponent's argumentation that you do not bring up during voters, I will view that as a point against you.

Congress:

If you stand up to speak, you should have new points and evidence to back up what you are saying. Speeches based on feelings or repeating what has already been said are not effective.

Policy:

I’m 100% a lay judge for policy. My team does not do this event, and I do not teach this event. If you want to talk super fast, make sure you’re enunciating clearly enough so I know what you’re saying.

I did debate in high school, all 4 years. I did mainly LD & BQ, but dabbled in PF a few times. My paradigm is pretty simple all in all. The less I have to do the better. The more I think the worse it could be for you, so the less I have to do the better. The more you can explain why something matters clearly and concisely the more likely you are to have my ballet. Your job is to convince me, so convince me and do it clearly. Also, I will be going primarily off of quality over quantity. A single well-thought-out argument is much better than a hundred mediocre ones. Speaking of, I hate speed. If you want me to follow the debate, I have to be able to understand you. I will obviously still flow and will try my best to follow the arguments as best I can, but if I can't keep up I will just focus on listening and then only off of my memory for reference which is not gonna be good for you. If I miss something that will be on you, if you want me to remember something make it clear that I need to remember it. At the end of the day, all I want is a good clean debate with nothing too crazy. Debate should be fun, so do your best, have fun, and tell me why you should win!

If you want to ask anything specific, please feel free to ask!

I did PF for 3 years and LD for one, and for these types of debate I prefer a more traditional and comms based approach, though Counter Plans for LD are allowed as well as Generalized Alternatives in PF. For policy, I know most of the lingo and am ok with medium high speed, though road-mapping and explaining jargon is an absolute must!

I vote off of what's on the flow, so be very clear about where an argument is being made and what other arguments in the round they apply to. (ie: For my next attack, group my opponent's first and second contentions...)

For decision making, I'll weigh whatever you tell me is most important in the round and use the resolution (along with any RA's or Value/Criterions) to judge the arguments and make a decision. Therefore, be EXTREMELY CLEAR on what's most important to your team.

I'm only ok with tag-teaming in Policy, but keep it to a minimum.

If the round is too close to call flow-wise, I will go first to comms and second to courtesy and ethics. Do your best and debate your style!

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

Consider me a "Comms" judge. Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

LD paradigm: I am generally a flow judge; however, I use the value/criterion debate as a weighting mechanism for my flow. that means I want to see clash on the value and criterion, convince me why your value and criterion are better for the round than your opponent. I know it isn't always possible, so if you find yourself against an opponent running the same value or criterion turning is fine. When it comes to progressive LD I am not super familiar with it so you'll have to walk me through a lot of it if you want to run a progressive case. speed isn't going to blow me away so keep your speed to at most, above average. make sure that your opponent can keep up and there won't be any problems. Finally in your rebuttals I want to see you linking back to cards, and your case if you don't then I will drop your arguments from my flow.

PF paradigm: I am not super familiar with PF so try to keep it traditional for the time being. I will primarily be a communications judge, but I will also be flowing for the sake of keeping up with your arguments. This means I want clear arguments, with sign posting when you are attacking and defending. Watch your speed. I prefer quality to quantity, but if your opponents can keep up there won't be any problems. One last thing is I want to see framework clash if there is any, I will use the framework when looking back on my flow.

CX: I have very little experience in policy debate, in fact it's hard to follow sometimes. that being said I am a communications judge, that means no spreading, no excessive speed, and being clear when you are attacking. you'll have to explain your attacks thoroughly, and ultimately whoever is best at convincing me they are right will win.

Who am I:

This is my 9th year as the head speech and debate coach.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok. Just make sure to communicate to me on why that is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate. Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large voting issue for me, so make sure I know why you've won on these issues.

K's/Theory

I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

Calling for evidence will use prep time. Ensure you need it and that you are willing to use prep time before you ask to see evidence. I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions, ask me in round!

Come prepared to present and persuade. I will be taking notes and following your contentions so keep to conversation speed.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

I have been judging for the last eight years. One of my important rules are if you are the AFF. it is your burden to prove your case. The neg only need to break down your case by two points. They will the case. I don't mind speed but the easier it is to understand you the better it is for you. I love when you battle each other but in a clean and respectful way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your round, take the experience to learn to critique your case and grow. Good luck!

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

Just make sure to follow the rules according to your debate topic and we will be good.

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

1. What experience do you have in debate, voting, or evaluating arguments? I am a voter

2. In order for me to understand what someone says, I need… presenter to speak slow and reference source materials

3. Which kinds of arguments am I more convinced by - emotionally-charged arguments or calm, logical arguments? Why do I think that is? I like logical, calm arguments without emotion

4. Which is more true for me: Values and philosophies are important, but real-world data and practical solutions are more important or Even when data or evidence says otherwise, I think holding to values and philosophies is more important. I believe values and morals are the most important part of decision making. I believe having strong morals is necessary.

5. Would I rather the debaters assume I am well-informed on the topic, or should they explain the topic clearly as if I were a student? Explain clearly as if I were a student

What experience do you have in debate, voting, or evaluating arguments? I am a voter who stays current with public affairs and politics

In order for me to understand what someone says, I need… Clearly-spoken arguments. I listen to videos and podcasts on 1.5x speed.

Which kinds of arguments am I more convinced by - emotionally-charged arguments or calm, logical arguments? Why do I think that is? I value calm arguments that are backed by solid evidence. I dislike when facts and evidence are obfuscated by a passionate or charismatic speaker. I believe facts are the most important thing when making decisions. I believe that emotionally-charge arguments are often rooted in moral beliefs. Moral beliefs are flawed - there is no absolute "right" or "wrong." Without objective morality, the only thing we can rely on is facts. Facts (that are properly gathered, with substantial supporting evidence) are not inherently good or bad, so we should separate them from emotions.

Which is more true for me: "Values and philosophies are important, but real-world data and practical solutions are more important" or "Even when data or evidence says otherwise, I think holding to values and philosophies is more important." I believe in following real world data and practical solutions. Values and philosophies should be formed around facts - and should be able to change when data changes.

Would I rather the debaters assume I am well-informed on the topic, or should they explain the topic clearly as if I were a student? Please explain the topic clearly and assume I have no prior information on the topic.

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

Worlds, I am a Worlds coach and this is my second year judging Worlds at Nationals. I judge to the rubric. 

Other Debate events, I flow the rounds. I also love impacts. If an argument is not attacked or sufficiently attacked in the round, it stands. If both sides have arguments standing, I weigh the impacts against each other and vote on that. I am not a Coms Judge, but I cannot flow what I cannot understand. I need articulation and a thorough understanding of your case.

Try to stay specific as the debate goes on in rebuttals and crystallization.

In PF, use cards sometimes in rebuttals. Do not rely solely on cross applying.

In LD, V/C is framework similar please apply it to your case rather than just debating which framework to go with. Clarity of what AFF and NEG are both advocating for is important for me to follow the debate (definitions), but I hate definitions debates, so don’t spend the whole speech on rebuttaling someone’s definition. Touching on it is sufficient. Be clear, but stay focused on the arguments.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

Hello everyone!

I am a fairly new judge, with that being said, I am looking for clear arguments that will be easy for me to follow. When I am flowing what I have heard in the debate, it will be much easier for me to track thorough arguments as opposed to spewing a bunch of evidence in my direction. During your final focus speech, make it very clear to me why you won the debate. Give me a full picture of what happened in the round, not just why a single argument or single piece of evidence won you the debate.

Make sure to signpost very clearly, otherwise I won't be able to flow your arguments.

Be nice during questioning period :)

For LD: Be very clear as to what your value and criteria are.

Good luck to you all!

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

I am a student at Boise State University, majoring in English Education with a certification in Kinesiology Sports Coaching and this is my first time judging so please bear with me. When judging, I don't want debaters to try and conform to my way of thinking. I want everyone to be themselves and debate in their own, best possible, way. I love when people show a passion for what they are saying and use an emotional appeal to their audience. Since I have never judged a debate before, it would be more beneficial for the speaker to go at about 50% their normal speed so I can keep up. I always do my best to stay objective, impartial, and unbiased. I will vote for whoever best presents, defends, and advocates for their stance. I want to be a blank slate and whoever can pull me to their side more will get my vote.

I judge primarily on the clarity of arguments and the communication/speaking skills used.

I am an attorney and practiced law many years before I started to teach. As a young law clerk, I worked for the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee where I loved going to the chambers to watch the debates. I also helped draft legislation and reports for the U.S. Senate.

With this background I look for arguments and presentations:

1. That are persuasive.

2. That are full arguments (without holes).

3. That a common person (such as a jury member) could easily follow.

4. Good connection with audience.

5. Good speed (not too fast).

6. Believable.

7. Professional.

I love debate as a communication tool. I will LOVE judging your event!

Congressional Debate: I've dealt in congress for the majority of my career; I know what I'm doing and looking for in competitors, as well as the rules of the round and common practice (Robert's Rules, etc).

The three main things I focus on are clarity, presentation, and clash.

You must present yourself professionally and succinctly, while also building a comprehensive case. This doesn't mean you have to dumb things down (I actually really love high-vocab and intellectual comprehension/interpretation of rules/congressional legal lingo), just don't try to elaborate unnecessarily on previously made points or talk a point to death once it has been introduced into the debate. It is also great to acknowledge previously made speeches, especially if you are citing work from a fellow house/senate member. I have a very high regard for civility, particularly in questioning period. Don't be rude, in short.

I know whether or not you actually know what you're talking about, as well, so unless you're capable of making a good on-the-spot extemporaneous speech or point, don't bother. Along with that point, you should be getting through as many questions in QP as possible: this is another dead giveaway as to whether or not you really know your stuff and gives you the opportunity to elaborate more upon previously made statements and really get your idea and presence out there. I may be biased, but I find Congress to be one of if not the most powerful and graceful forms of debate, and when done well, it is nothing shy of dazzling; live to your fullest potential in this regard! Personal style and the development of such is one of congressional debate's strong suits.

Finally, there should be solid clash and new points being presented AT LEAST every three speeches (both aff and neg). Unless there is actual debate going on on the same point for several consecutive speeches, don't drag out an argument for longer than it needs to be- no it doesn't make you look smart or edgy.

LD: Extensive background in this as well. Once again, I can see right through you.

Main focuses are clarity, clash, strong and assertive cross ex, and related value/criterion pairings- make sure to really reinforce and affirm exactly why it is that they go together, and continually reference and tie them into your speeches throughout the round

Off-time roadmaps are also much appreciated!

POFO: This should NOT look like an LD round, and should operate much more like policy. Do NOT tell me anything about a value or morality set. Automatic red flag.

I love to see effective tag-teaming that shows whether or not your team is in-sync and mentally present during debate. There is a difference between carrying them and working WITH them. Make sure all your questions reflect such as well. Always go over VOTERS!!

Policy: Essentially the same things as POFO. I want clarity, efficacy, and voters. Do not set up your speech/give your speech during a QP.

It is my sincere honour and pleasure to work with you all. Good luck!! :))

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

I like a debate with good conflict. I like to see debaters that are well prepared in both their cases and their appearance. I like a debater that is able to support their contentions with supportive evidence. I appreciate speech that is quick and clearly understandable.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

PF

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

I judge primarily on the clarity of arguments and the communication/speaking skills used. Please speak clearly, I can handle somewhat fast talking but not a crazy amount.

Updated National Tournament 2024

If you plan on going fast, please put me on the email chain or speech drop (bsondrup@gmail.com). He/Him pronouns

I was a four year debater in high school and college, and now a coach.

I am a tab judge. This means I have no preference and I expect you to tell me how I should vote through framework and role of the ballot analysis. If I am not given this, I tend to default to a utility framework. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before round.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

I am an experienced judge. I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Since 2010, I have been an assistant and head coach in the Treasure Valley as well as judge in both the Idaho circuit and national circuit. I have judged at the NSDA National tournament 3 times during this time and at out of state TOC bid tournaments including Alta, Berkeley, Gonzaga and Puget Sound.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear and can sign post well. I prefer a clean and easy to follow/flow debate round.

I tend to be a quality of argument and impact judge. In other words, a well constructed case with good analysis that provides clear links and impacts.

Of course, a courteous debate round is expected.

Background: I have been coaching for nearly 30 years - a combination of coaching at Boise State University for the Talkin' Broncos (15 years) and now 14+ years at the high school level.

Overall Debate Philosophy/Preferences: I believe debate is a game we play with our friends, so please respectfully present your arguments but do so in a way that is positive and reflects well on this activity. I appreciate organization, tell me where your clash is, and impact out your points. Tell me WHY your arguments and points take priority or should be considered above those of your counterparts.

Policy Debate: I am fine with moderate speed. If I can't understand or follow you, I will stop flowing the round. Great debate can be won or loss in cross-examination. Ask pertinent questions, answer directly. I prefer stock issues but am open to most arguments if you can JUSTIFY why it is preferred.

PF/LD Debate: As these debate formats ask you to perform specific duties, it is imperative that you meet that expectation for me to win my ballot. In LD, make sure you link your value and criterion to all your contentions. I must hear impacts - don't leave it to me to do your work. Don't just give me tag lines and evidence and expect me to figure it out. That is your job! In PF, each debater has a very specific role so make sure to fulfill it. Case, Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus are each important and a well-balanced team tends to look better.

Congressional Debate: Be professional, well organized when speaking, ask pertinent questions, and stay engaged throughout the session and you'll move up in chamber rank. Be that representative that takes the other side and challenge your fellow reps. I enjoy clash, respectfully done, and be the consummate debater and colleague.

Summation: I believe that Debate, in any format, is a combination of research, organization, refutation, and being stylistic. For organizations' sake, please road map and sign post, provide a brief summary conclusion that leaves me impressed with your skills as a public speaker, strong researcher, and believing your arguments and impacts.

Be brilliant, be persuasive, be nice. Your fellow debaters, no matter where they are from, are your friends!

Hi!

I did debate all four years of high school and mostly did policy, but I also did PF and LD! So you can do theory, K’s, and all of that fun stuff and I’ll be cool with it as long as you explain/defend it well.

I would say that I’m a flow judge, I personally will be flowing throughout the round to keep track of everything. Dropped arguments and voters are going to be areas that I will look at the most when deciding the winner(s) of the round. I’m not a heavy comms judge, you can talk fast just make sure that I can still understand what you’re saying. I also ask for everyone to be polite to one another in round, I know it can get heated but just be nice people.

If you guys have more questions about how I judge ask before we start the round and I’ll gladly elaborate. :)

If you talk too fast, I'm not going to follow it. Be respectful, but clash is okay.

Public Forum

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk or a bully. I hate it. Your scores will reflect it.

I weigh evidence higher than framework. Quality evidence should be applicable, cited, not twisted or warped to your meaning, and from a good source. Don’t tell me “our card so and so from this date is evidence against such and such”. Read my your cards. Tell me why your source is more reputable than your opponent's source. Tell me why your evidence is important. Don't tell me that you win the case if your opponent cant win your framework. You present the arguments and let me decide who should win or lose and why.

Time yourself. Don’t tell me you want to use 30 seconds of your prep time and make me tell you when that is up.

Speak clearly and at a speed that is good for your voice. Don’t push it. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

I personally hate brief off time road maps that don’t tell me anything new. They always say, “I am going to build my case, then as time allows I will discredit my opponent's case. Yada, yada, yada” Why waste everyone's time?

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Policy

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it. I find strategies centered on shenanigans, bullying and manipulation to be annoying. Your scores will reflect it.

I can usually follow fast speaking, if it is spoken clearly. I usually am not good at flowing spreading, as such, I can’t award wins based on information that is presented that way. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you. Often speed is used to try to cover up poor word economy and poor arguments. Do not tell me that your opponents dropped a point if they didn’t drop it. It tells me that you actually did not understand what your opponent was saying, are trying to bully me into believing you, or trying to deceive me. Any of them reflect poorly on you. Make sure they actually did drop it before you accuse them of it.

I appreciate signposting to help me identify that your plan covers all 5 areas that it should. Make sure you cover harms, inherency, plan, solvency, and topicality.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Lincoln-Douglas

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it.

LD is a value debate. Know what your value means. The person that argues their value best wins the debate. It's that simple.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. Know your case. I watch for canned speeches and score them harshly. If someone else wrote your speech, at least take the time to learn what it is saying.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

I am a Stock/Comm judge with a particular emphasis on Communications. While I do use the stock issues to guide my voting I give primary consideration to the side that most clearly explains their argument. I do not draw conclusions or inference for you, please, take me by the hand and lead me to your argument's conclusion.

Speed is the root of all evil. As a Communications judge I am looking for the combination of good argumentation that is presented in a way that I can understand. I consider my flow to be the paramount flow in the round. If you are moving so fast that I can not flow your case those arguments does not make it to my flow and will not be considered in my decision.

I also prefer respectful clash during Cross Examination. Please use the time ask questions that advance your position not just review cards presented in the previous presentation.

When it comes to LD my major concern is that there is a strong understanding of how V&C interact. This means more than mentioning your V&C. Please show me how your criterion validates your value. As with policy, communicating your argument clearly is very important.

I would have to say I stand behind what I believe in - what I believe is true. If the speaker(s) can prove to me with well, thoughtful words - supported by evidence - I will agree with what is being presented. I can't agree, nor support a side that does not communicate what they mean.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

young.broox@gmail.com - shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns, or if you want specific feedback post-tourney.

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in English and philosophy. I Have been a Finals Panelist Judge in Congress at the annual Nationals Tournament and have judged Congressional Debate and other events for 5+ years.

My most important rule is to keep decorum and be respectful.

In terms of my general debate paradigm;

Go ahead and read whatever case you want—even theory if you think you can.

I like to think that I'm generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot(I am.)

Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches, I will evaluate the arguments you tell me to. Unless that is, what you're telling me to evaluate is stupid, which I will probably tell you on your ballot(respectfully we hope.) If you don't tell me how to evaluate your—and/or your interlocutors'—arguments, I will not know how you want me to weigh them.

I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Or if you tell me to call a card.

Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow at any speed at this point, but spreading will reflect poorly on your speaks.

pleaSE signpost. I neither need nor want your off-time roadmap if you signpost effectively.

Probably most importantly; Good luck, have fun.